In Today's News

I am a progressive Roman Catholic noticing that conservatives and traditionalists Catholics take most of the Catholic space on the web. I decided to start blogging to advance "progressive" Catholic views. I can be reached by email at jcecil3@verizon.net

Friday, October 10, 2008

Can Pro-Life Catholics Vote for Obama and Other Democrats

I believe a just society is founded on the foundational right to life, which is the condition for the possibility for freedom and choice. Human life begins at conception. A culture of life fosters a respect for the sanctity of human life and the incomparable dignity of the human person from womb to tomb - conception until natural death. As Christians, we are called to care for the vulnerable, to be inclusive of the marginalized, to protect the innocent, to forgive the sinner, and to be a voice for the voiceless.

I am pro-life. Indeed, fellow "liberals" consider me an extremist. I even oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest in an ideal world. I would support a right to life amendment to the constitution, and would shed no tears if Roe v. Wade were changed in a legally valid way. Short of either of these things happening, I support incremental restrictions on abortion to reduce the harm.

All of this said, there may be non-restrictive means of reducing abortion rates. One of the conditions for the possibility of building a pro-life consensus in a pluralistic democracy would be to reduce the demand for abortion. Barack Obama promises to try to reduce abortion rates by non-restrictive means. Some statistics indicate that up to seventy percent of abortions are driven by economic decisions. Might a combination of economic justice initiatives and better education efforts (including abstinence training) decrease abortion rates? Might the late Cardinal Bernadine's "seamless garment" argument for a consistent ethic of life be more persuasive in forming a culture of life? Might this ethic be more consistent with the whole of Catholic social justice teaching? Isn’t the consistent ethic of life implied in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae?

A consistent ethic of life appeals to social conservatives who seek to prevent abortions, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia. A consistent ethic of life also appeals to progressives who seek to prevent the death penalty, promote peace, reverse the excesses of militarism, reduce gun violence, protect the environment, and alleviate the dehumanizing and often deadly effects of poverty. A culture of life and a culture of social and economic justice does not need to be the either/or proposition our American political parties have tended to make it. We Catholics can strive for a both/and approach. This does not necessitate the formation new political party. Rather, it may mean taking different pragmatic approaches to solving the same problem. There may be a Republican way, and a Democratic way towards the same end.

I support a right to life amendment to the constitution. The office of President has absolutely and positively nothing to do with the formal process of passing an amendment. The President cannot veto an amendment, and his or her signature is not required for an amendment to become law. An amendment is passed by a two thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, or by means of a constitutional convention whereby three fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendment. Both processes have been successfully employed historically. For either of these processes to occur in passage of a right to life amendment, we need a huge national consensus for the sanctity of life. Reducing abortion rates by non-restrictive means today may set the stage for passing restrictions tomorrow.

The President does appoint court justices, who must be confirmed by the Senate. However, even after confirmed, judges are ethically bound by precedent. Even an "originalist" or "strict constructionist" admits that the constitution does not state that personhood begins at conception. The constitution clearly states that the rights of personhood belong to those who are born or naturalized in the United States. Only an amendment would change this. The issue decided by the courts is not really when the rights of personhood begin. Rather, the court settled whether the state has a compelling interest in the "potential for personhood" when this interest seemed to be in conflict with an implied right to privacy already established in prior cases. Roe and subsequent cases affirm that the state does have a compelling interest in the potential for personhood that increases as a pregnancy progresses. However, the right to privacy established prior to Roe is the foundation for a right to an abortion until the rights of personhood at birth are realized. Even pro-life Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, admits that privacy is a legitimate constitutional right.

Supreme Court Justices, even if Catholic, must balance the weight of precedent with other principles, but precedent cannot simply be ignored. Justice Roberts (a presumably pro-life Catholic) put it best. We shouldn't "shock the system". Seven of the nine current justices were appointed by pro-life Republican presidents – five of them are Roman Catholic - and Roe hasn't been overturned yet. Even Justice Scalia (another pro-life Catholic) refers to the judicial process of reversing Roe as more of a "gradual chipping away" at it. One can argue that the court never should have taken the Roe case, or could have ruled differently than they did. Wishful thinking does not undo the historical reality that Roe is the law of the land and will be for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, if Roe is "chipped away" to the point of being overturned, all that occurs is that the issue is thrown back to the states. If we do not reduce the demand for abortion, most states will legislate in a pro-choice direction.

Restrictive laws and executive orders with less authority than an amendment can be passed, but they must be consistent with court rulings. So, we are currently stuck with Roe for the foreseeable future.

None of this has to do with theology. I am merely outlining the political reality. If we do not get about two-thirds of the general population to accept our pro-life point of view, the laws simply will not change as long as our current constitutional processes are in place. That is a fact. Changes in the law simply will not happen until we build a broader consensus.

I would argue that part of building this broader consensus is reducing abortion rates. Another part is having more civil discourse on this so-called "hot button" issue. Pro-life Catholics ought to refrain from rhetoric that repels others rather than reaching them. We will not change many hearts when we shout "baby-killer" at our opponents. We need to continue writing our legislators regarding our pro-life convictions. Many of us already volunteer with organizations like Project Gabriel, which help women chose life with support in bringing the child to term. We need to continue these efforts, and consider other opportunities to assist women in choosing life. We need to pray daily for an end to abortion.

On a theological level, many pro-life Catholics seem to be ignoring some critical teachings, in my opinion.

First, Guadium et Spes is explicit that there is a legitimate autonomy between Church and state, and it warns explicitly about confusing specific political solutions with the gospel. I support a right to life amendment, but the Gospel has nothing to say about such an amendment. While the Gospel may involve principles that lead to a pro-life position, passage of a specific law in a specific time and place is never the Gospel, per se. There may be more than one way to reduce abortions.

Second, while the Church teaches that the rights of personhood begin at conception and that all direct abortions terminate the life of an innocent human being, the Church does not explicitly teach that personhood begins at conception. The Church does seem to make a distinction between "being" and "person". This is obvious in Trinitarian doctrine, and subtly carries over into the teaching on abortion. The subtle distinction is clear in a document called Donum Vitae (signed by our current Pope, before he was Pope). The Church explicitly refuses to say when personhood begins. We can't know when personhood begins, which is precisely why we act with a presumption of personhood where there is room for doubt. If we cannot know that a zygote is a person, we also cannot know that a zygote is not a person!

On an intellectual level, many Catholics can comprehend the abstract logic of the Church's teaching. However, on another level, many of these same Catholics have doubts about whether a zygote is a person. We know the zygote is a human life with potential for personhood. We know this human life is somehow different than cell removed from one of our arms. We even agree that since we cannot know personhood exists already, we should ideally act as though personhood is present. However, zygotes don't have brains, and do not seem self aware. They do not relate to others in a personal way. Furthermore, it is even possible for a single zygote to undergo the phenomenon of twinning. If the soul and personhood begin at conception, how many persons were present in the single zygote that became identical twins?

In the tough cases - like rape, incest, or danger to the health of the mother - our doubts can be more forceful, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. From a theological point of view, the fact is that many canonized saints, including Aquinas, denied that a rational human soul exists at the very moment we would call conception. At the same time, Aquinas admits that a soul of some sort exists in every living being. Though Catholic Democratic House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, may not have made this point with clarity, there is some grounds for what she seemed to be trying to convey in a recent interview. Catholic politicians Mario Cuomo and John Kerry have made similar points. Human life begins at conception, but it is difficult for many people to accept that personhood or a soul exists precisely at that moment. If saints had difficulty with the subject, how can we expect non-believers in a pluralistic democracy to accept it?

Given all of this, in a pluralistic democracy, how far can we expect to push the issue? If one is an elected official in a representative democracy, one has an ethical obligation to uphold the constitution as interpreted by the court, and to represent the interests of one's constituency. If an elected official is supposed to represent not only one's personal views, but those of one's constituents, is there wiggle room or room for compromise? Indeed, Catholic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, states that while he personally opposes abortion, he believes that Roe is probably as close as we can get to a sort of compromised consensus in this country.

John Paul II indicated in Evangelium Vitae that a politician whose pro-life convictions were known and who felt that laws permitting abortion could not be abrogated should seek to limit the harm of abortion. I do not believe that John Paul II was merely encouraging Catholic politicians to say "I’m personally opposed to abortion, but,...," while going on to pander to the pro-choice constituency and doing nothing at all to reduce abortions. On the other hand, I don't think John Paul II was saying that there is one and only one way to reduce abortions.

The Gospel and Church teaching warn against rash judgment. While we can judge actions, we cannot judge the heart. I welcome efforts by bishops to invite pro-choice Catholic politicians to be honest with themselves about their motives. Yet, I question those bishops who seem to know the politicians are unworthy of communion based on political soundbites. I also question using the Eucharist as a political weapon in an attempt to sway the vote of the laity.

Another question is worth asking. When pitting abortion against other issues, can we have higher priorities in the present moment? Are we to be single issue voters if the issue is grave enough? Some pro-lifers compare legalized abortion to the holocaust. Let's extend that analogy. An argument could be made that in a democracy, voting for a president or legislator who supported genocide would be more egregious than voting for a politician who is pro-choice, even if there were statistically more abortions than the ethnic group targeted for extermination. The reason genocide might trump permissive abortion laws is that the state is acting as the primary moral agent committing the evil of murder, compared to a private citizen acting alone as the moral agent. In a democracy, when the state acts as the primary moral agent, we are all complicit in some way.

Pope Benedict said to the U.S. bishops prior to the 2004 election that a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice politician when she or he does not agree with the politician on the issue of abortion. The decisive factor is that we must have proportionate reason to do so. Abortion involves a foundational human right - the right to life. It is difficult for many Catholics to imagine what could be a more dominant issue than that. Pope Benedict was explicit that abortion and euthanasia, as intrinsic evils, carry more weight than war and the death penalty, which are not intrinsically evil.

On the other hand, the example of genocide captures something of why I believe many Catholics do feel that just war or elimination of the death penalty might outweigh abortion in certain instances. War and the death penalty involve the state acting as the primary moral agent.

Genocide, like abortion and euthanasia, is an intrinsic evil. Yet, I would argue that genocide outweighs pro-choice laws because of the moral agency of the state. To use another example, mandatory abortions, as with China's one child per family laws, is worse than America's pro-choice laws. To drive home the point further, the Catechism calls masturbation intrinsically disordered, and it is obvious that masturbation or pornography are not on par with abortion, genocide, and euthanasia. Nor would anyone argue that all acts of masturbation should be criminalized, as though the issue is non-negotiable. It is not because an act is intrinsically evil that it becomes dominant. Rather, it is the gravity of the act that makes it outweigh another issue. When the state performs evil, it is graver than when a private citizen does evil on his or her own.

To call an act intrinsically evil does not mean that the act is always gravely evil or politically non-negotiable. Rather, in the language of Church teaching, an intrinsic evil is an act that is always and everywhere immoral to some degree, without exception. The degree of evil may be mitigated to the point where the sin is venial. Indeed, culpability for subjective sin might be non-existent even while the act is objectively immoral to some degree regardless of the ends, means, or circumstances.

Considered generally, war is not an intrinsic evil because there are situations where waging a legitimate and proportionate military defense against unprovoked aggression underway as a last resort is morally just. While the death penalty may be immoral in societies that have the means to bloodlessly restrain violent offenders, the death penalty might be just in other types of societies, such as a primitive federation of nomadic tribes without a prison system. Because these issues are not intrinsically evil, and abortion is considered intrinsically evil, abortion will always carry some weight with our vote, while war or the death penalty might not in certain circumstances. On the other hand, when unjust wars are waged, they violate the sanctity of life just as much as abortion. Unjust executions violate the sanctity of human life as surely as euthanasia. In other words, military policy and the death penalty involve grave issues.

If one is convinced that a particular use of military force is unjust, such as the invasion of Iraq and the so-called Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war, one might weigh that particular issue as equal to or greater than abortion in gravity. Like genocide, the use of military force involves the state as the primary moral agent, compared to abortion, where a woman and her doctor act as the primary moral agents. A similar point could be made with the intrinsic evil of torture.

Let's not forget that we also don't judge candidates solely on the issues, but on their leadership and character – their integrity and ability to get things done. It does no good to elect a pro-life candidate who is an ineffective leader. Furthermore, if the President has little to no real constitutional power to change abortion laws, but does have some real constitutional power to effect the economy and set foreign policy, isn't that sufficient reason to expand our focus beyond a single issue?

Few Catholics believe in single issue voting. In general, I agree with many conservative pro-life Catholics who refer to abortion as one dominant issue among other dominant issues in voting. I even agree that in some cases, it will be the decisive factor in our vote. Typically, the issues that seem to earn this designation of "dominant" among many conservative pro-life Catholics are then limited to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual unions. While I favor equal rights for homosexuals, I agree with cultural conservatives that these five issues are critically important. I do not agree with these same Catholics when they speak of these five issues as "non-negotiable" and limit the political discourse to only these five issues. While our values and principles are non-negotiable, our politics must be negotiated. There are many more issues than just these five to weigh for both political and theological reasons.

In the election cycles since November of 2002, it seems clear to me that American Catholics must consider the possibility that voting for the pro-choice candidates might be morally equal to or preferable to voting for the candidate who favors greater restrictions on abortion. In the immediate near term, very little can be done to change the laws on abortion. Yet, much might be done to continue reducing the abortion rate, paving the way for changes in the law at a later time. Those very same initiatives that might reduce abortion rates may involve action consistent with other moral imperatives of the Church's overall social justice teaching. The absolute ideal state might be unobtainable in a pluralistic democracy, at least in our life-time. There are also other moral issues involving the sanctity of life to consider, such as the use of military force and our overall foreign policy. It seems clear to me that while neither party is perfect, one can seriously argue that the Democratic positions in recent years have been as pro-life overall as the Republican Party is reputed to be, if not more so.

Peace and blessings to all who wander through here.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who enjoys discussing and debating theological issues with Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
My experience in surfing the web on topics of Catholicism is that most sites lean toward the conservative side of the Church. One would get the impression that Catholic liberals or progressives do not exist.

So, I have turned to "blogging" where I can become a voice in the wilderness crying out as the loyal opposition from within Catholicism for progressive change in the Church, while defending her from outer attack from the atheists, fundamentalists and whoever else has an axe to grind.

I wanted to create a space for progressive Catholicism on the web, where fellow progressives can feel their views are heard and shared.

Let me say up front, that if I depart from the "official line" of the Vatican here, I will say so. I will try to explain why I withhold assent from a teaching and point to the Catechism or other authoritive texts where you can read the Church's official answers and judge for yourself whether my questions are valid. I make no claim of personal infallibility, and I very well can be in error. That said, I see no reason why the questions of progressive Catholics should not be given serious attention.

A little about myself: I am an ex-seminarian for Catholic priesthood and completed 72 graduate credits towards the M.Div., with a dual MA concentrating in systematic theology. I never got around to completing the comps and thesis for the MA. I was in formation in a religious order (Franciscans) for almost six years before discerning that celibacy was not my calling. I still feel the desire to serve the Church as a priest, but make absolutely no claim to be an official voice of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

Since leaving the seminary, I have married and I work in a secular corporation in a job that actually provides a service associated with one of the corporal works of mercy. I don't want to be too specific lest I violate some corporate policy. I am an operations manager. I hope to someday do work in a developing nation as a lay missionary or Peace Corps type of volunteer.

My Catholicism expresses itself in my faithfulness to marriage and through frequent Mass attendance (almost daily), frequent recitation of the Rosary, and daily recitation of Morning and Evening prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours (also known as the Divine Office). I use the Sacrament of Reconciliation about once a month on average. I am a lector and member of my parish choir. I also currently volunteer about four hours per week to teaching English as a second language in a diocesan program of ministry to non-native immigrant Americans. I have taught CCD (now called PSR in most places) and two adult education classes on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do not practice contraception, I am pro-life, and as a sign of compassion and an act of penance, I am a vegetarian (whom Saint Paul called weak).

I don't write any of this to boast except in the Lord, as Saint Paul does in 2 Cor 11: 22-32. Only by the grace of Jesus Christ is any good at all done in me, and I still have much sinfullness and confusion to overcome. Nevertheless, in often taking stances that seem opposed by the Vatican, many of my fellow Roman Catholics will question my right to call myself Catholic. If faith is expressed in works as much or more than what is said on the lips, my deeds demonstrate my loyalty to the Church! And may the Mother of God intercede for me if I am in grave and substantial error.

I define myself as a Roman Catholic because I have received the sacraments of initiation, continue to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

I accept the following beliefs as my own and can explain them:
The kerygma, "Christ has died, Christ IS risen, and Christ will come again",
the Apostles' Creed,
the Nicene Creed,
the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture,
the Holy Spirit's guidance in the transmission and development of Sacred Tradition,
the seven sacraments,
the validity of infant baptism,
the validity of baptism in the Trinitarian formula by either sprinkling or immersion,
the doctrine of transubstantiation, or real presence in the Eucharist,
the doctrine that we are saved by grace through faith expressed in works,
the doctrine of original sin - that I NEED God's grace in my life to be saved,
the doctrine of purgatory,
the doctrine that we may ask the prayers of deceased saints on our behalf,
the two great commandments to love God above all and our neighbor as our self,
the golden rule, to do unto others as you would have them do to you,
the ten commandments,
the beatitudes,
the value of human life, including the unborn,
the value of chastity and temperance (I'm actually a boring prude in some ways),
the precepts of the Church,
the theological and cardinal virtues,
the Ecumenical Councils,
the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra,
the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Assumption,
the value of the vocation of celibacy to the Church,
the idea that the fullness of truth subsist in the Catholic Church,
and the importance of family.

Yet, I believe that doctrine develops according to Dei Verbum 8, and that such development can justify beliefs considered "controversial" by many Catholics.

The more controversial beliefs I hold are as follows: I believe that God can be called Mother as well as Father, and
that inclusive language in reference to the people of God should be used in liturgy,
that women could be ordained ministerial priest, and perhaps should be ordained (The Pope has clearly said no to this one),
that married men should be ordained,
that even with original sin, we image the divine and we are inherently capable of some good,
that the ancient rite of adelphopoiesis could be restored as a union for homosexual Catholics,
that divorced and remarried Catholics can participate in the life of the Church,
that artificial contraception in marriage is morally equivalent to natural family planning,
that ecumenical dialogue is essential to contemporary Catholicism and we can learn from non-Catholics,
that social justice is part and parcel of the gospel,
that salvation is integral for the whole human person (involving liberation),
that there is room for democratic forms of Church governance,
that Catholics should be committed to conserving the environment,
that Catholics can conscientiously object to all war on principle, and
that Catholics should be opposed to the death penalty in the modern world.

- Any psychological assessment of a commenter, of any type, even if done by a trained professional, is not acceptable here on this site, because right or wrong, the host does not believe psychology is well practiced in cyberspace at this point in his life,

- I do recognize intellectual bullying tactics and do not want to see it here,

- Name calling is not acceptable,

- Meanness is unacceptable behavior,

- Anything I deem hurtful will be considered inappropriate,

- Stick to the topic of the post you are commenting upon,

- Do not dredge up ancient history with others you have encountered in the past, whether in cyberspace, or in real life, or any other venue,

- Be as nice as you possibly can muster even to a mean host who you are simply not permitted under any circumstances whatsoever to say is mean no matter what you think of him,

- Do not nitpick with anyone over things like spelling and grammar, because the host struggles with this himself and does not see correct spelling and grammar as essential to the validity of a person's point of view,

- All "on topic" points of view are welcome, even if needing more factual support,

- Do not nitpick over small and non-essential details to create red herrings,

- Opinions may be expressed in terms of "I think" or "I feel" and will be welcome without personal assault, so long as I, and I alone, do not judge you to be mean to other commenters,

- Diversity of input to the topic is encouraged, and I hope I am not scarring people away by demanding strict adherence to what I consider very commonsense politeness,

- I am a liberal. While I may tolerate some politically incorrect speech, be careful. I reserve the right to reign you in. What I percieve as blatantly or intentionally racist, sexist, or homophobic may not fly, though I'll grant a wee little latitude if I can see where you are headed, or have no reason to believe your intentions are what I, and I alone, consider unacceptable,

- State your case and don't be evasive when directly asked an opinion question,

- Saying "I don't know" or "Let me look that up and get back to you" is an intellegent choice of words that please the host and might even please God,

- I welcome different ways of knowing than the rational technique of arguing, and also like to argue and debate according to the rules I am outlining,

- Logical fallacies identified by the Greek philosophers may be pointed out, and when accurately pointed out according to my final judgment, do not call for retaliation against the person who pointed it out,

- Democrats, Republicans, Independants, Green, liberal and conservative, and all parties are welcome.

- Some criticism of other ideologies than your own by you will be tolerated by the host if you can support your position as judged by the host,

- You must accept criticism of your own ideology charitably, whether it was given charitably or not,

- I am not particularly fond of the cyber-practice known as "fisking" (line-by-line analysis of a comment in quote and response format). I'll tolerate it usually without saying anything, but be aware it may set me on edge, or encourage me to do the same, even though nobody talks that way in real life. Use it judicially,

- Do not imply anyone commenting is stupid,

- You may refer to public figures who are not commenting as stupid if you believe it true or more charitable than the alternative explanations for their behavior,

- When a public figure who is not participating in this discussion is called stupid by a commenter, no other commenter is permitted to retaliate against that commenter because it might be true that the public figure has a low IQ. Instead, you are to ask for the evidence, and if it is supplied, shut up no matter how much you like the the person lacking intelligence, accept that the public figure might be stupid, and if you do not follow this rule, I will shut you up upon my own discretion,

- If making any sort of moral critique of any sort, focus on acts instead of persons,

- Avoid judging others and be merciful to those who admit being wrong,

- Treat all other commenters with the respect due to a human person possessing the incomparable dignity revealed in the incarnation event,

- Please, do feel free to appeal to textual support if you have it for your opinions, such as Vatican documents, the Bible, statements from bishops, etc... but don't overwhelm us, even if the host does that all the time, and accept the possibility of alternate interpretations than yours,

- If you've been away from the Church for decades and can't back your opinion up with texts, do not fear - I will help you,

- Follow your mothers rule, which is "Do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to the rules of the host,

- Finally, follow the golden rule, whether you think I do or not, and do not coment on my own consistency with this rule in the way I manage my blog no matter what you think.

I reserve the right to verbally swat you hard enough to emotionally hurt you if possible if you break my rules.

I reserve the right and have the technology to delete comments or ban people or even alter comments. I seldom have had to use it.

I reserve the sole right to be mean to mean spirited commentors if I choose to be without criticism.

Mind your P's and Q's and stick to the subject of the post to avoid punitive action.

On the flip side, if you are nice to me and each other, you can express whatever "on topic" opinion you wish with any choice of words you feel is effective - including curse words and expletives and images - so long as they very clearly are not directed at any person reading this blog by my own supreme judgment which is to be considered unquestionable and off limits to discussion in the comments.

I, and I alone, reserve sole right and privilege to judge who is following my own rules of discussion.

Do not accuse me, or even another commenter of breaking the rules either implicitly or explicitly.

If you're thinking ill of someone, don't say it, and try not to let it leak into your comments.

The judgment of who is following my rules belongs to me alone because this is my blog.

If I happen to be away from my PC while discussion gets heated from one individual, do not call it out.
Wait until I get back to my PC and let me decide who is being cruel, if anyone. And I may very well be away for hours on hours at a time. Tough. Wait it out, or I'll beat you up too (and delete your comments if I feel I should).

I am the judge and jury here - I am not God - but for the purposes of this blog close enough that if you wish to participate, you better do what I say.

Please pray for me that I act as a benevolent and humble dictator guided by the merciful and loving wisdom of God, but have no fear to show the tough love needed to foster justice and the life dialogue where creativity and dicovery and community can occur.